Interesting NFL/legal nugget

[Okla-homey]

Here's the dealio. An NFL player sues another for battery after he is hit hard after a play and after the refs blew the whistle. The defendant player relied on the argument that football is a rough sport and folks who play it are trained to be tough and to take their licks.

Here's a nugget from the decision in the appeal filed by the defendant who lost at the trial court level. As you can see, the appellate court pretty much poo-pooed the defendant's argument:


For purpose of determining what standard of conduct may be imposed on players during professional football games, fact that professional football player has been trained and motivated to be heedless of injury to himself renders it wholly incongruous to talk about such player's duty of care for the safety of opposing players; character of competition in professional football negates notion that player's conduct could be circumscribed by any standard of reasonableness.
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 435 F.Supp. 352 (1977)

[Pricetag]

Jebus, judge speak is about as bad as CEO speak. Did he or she actually say anything there?

[Veritas]

So what he said was "nice try, wussy."

That about right?

[OUMallen]

I think it's missing some articles or soemthing.

[Frozen Sooner]

Here's the dealio. An NFL player sues another for battery after he is hit hard after a play and after the refs blew the whistle. The defendant player relied on the argument that football is a rough sport and folks who play it are trained to be tough and to take their licks.

Here's a nugget from the decision in the appeal filed by the defendant who lost at the trial court level. As you can see, the appellate court pretty much poo-pooed the defendant's argument:

You're saying she poo-poohed the defendant's argument-to be clear, since we're at the apellate level here, are you talking about the guy who originally brought the suit? Because that nugget looks to me like she agrees with the original defense of "Football's tough. Deal."

[Okla-homey]

You're saying she poo-poohed the defendant's argument-to be clear, since we're at the apellate level here, are you talking about the guy who originally brought the suit? Because that nugget looks to me like she agrees with the original defense of "Football's tough. Deal."

At the risk of gross oversimplification:

trial level: plaintiff (sue-er) v. defendant (sue-ee)

appeal level: appellant (one who appeals the trial court decision) v. appellee (one who "won" at the trial court level and is now subject to losing it all in the appeal "do-over").

Here, the dirty player lost at trial, and he lost again in his appeal of the trial court decision. The appeals court didn't buy his argument that football players have to be tough and players shouldn't be subject to lawsuits if they engage in dirty play and deliberately hurt another guy, especially after the play is dead.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yes, I know who the defendant and the plaintiff are, as well as appellee and appelant. Since the caption flipped and the text you quoted seemed sympathetic to the appellant's argument, I wondered if you had substituted defendant for appellee. 'Cause seriously, my reading of what you posted was that the appellate court was saying that there is no duty of care presumed in a sport where people are encouraged to take blatant disregard of their bodies.

[TUSooner]

n/m

I gotta start reading stuff before I talk about it :O

[StoopTroup]

Then...once everything is over the guy in the wheel chair that lost his case comes rolling up with a shotgun and decides his own case.

[Okla-homey]

Yes, I know who the defendant and the plaintiff are, as well as appellee and appelant. Since the caption flipped and the text you quoted seemed sympathetic to the appellant's argument, I wondered if you had substituted defendant for appellee. 'Cause seriously, my reading of what you posted was that the appellate court was saying that there is no duty of care presumed in a sport where people are encouraged to take blatant disregard of their bodies.

Tellyawhat. You'll read the case next year. It'll be in your Torts casebook. The case is used to illustrate the point that even professional athletes have a certain duty of care to their opponents and NFL football stadiums aren't "Thunderdomes."

[Frozen Sooner]

Homey, I'm not disputing that. A half-bright marmot could pretty easily dispose of defense's argument simply by stating that while a certain level of violence is anticipated in the sporting arena, such violence is regulated by rules and an attack that occurs in violation of said rules cannot be reasonably anticipated.

I was just confused by your characterization of the quoted text, because it doesn't seem to say what you say it does. If the appellate court ended up ruling in favor of the plaintiff, awesome.

[sooner_born_1960]

I think they should just make them wear skirts, and be done with it.